An Awkward Question: must you line-up? | Fanaticus

stevie
Emperor

Posts: 3,195

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 17, 2022 12:26:19 GMT

Quote

Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2022 12:26:19 GMT

The old HoTT FAQ from “The Stonghold Rebuilt” site says, and I quote:-
Q: An element moves into an enemy's front zone, and wishes to line up with it.
However, it has insufficient movement to do so in this bound.
Is it allowed to partially line up with the enemy element, completing the move in a following bound?
A: No. A move to line up (or contact) an enemy element within its front zone must be completed within
a single bound or it may not be attempted.
　　
Although this makes sense when contacting an enemy (where front corners must touch: see page 31),
lining up at a distance is a bit controversial, and is not borne-out by the rules.

The “Crossing An Enemy Element’s Front” rules, bullet point two, and also the diagram on page 29,
example 6, first bullet point, both say you can move straight forward when in a ZOC...
...and if the enemy is at an angle to your front, moving straight forward will not be lining-up this bound.

However, I do see the the point of this HoTT FAQ interpretation, and think it should be applied in all cases,
except when moving exactly straight forwards.
Consider the following example:-

Here the Red player has quite wisely left Element-A back to that its ZOC prevents a flank attack.
But if the Blue player can move Element-X forwards and sideways a bit, without lining up,
then it will block the ZOC from Element-A, leaving Element-Y free to ‘shut-the-door’.
(This can’t happen in DBA 3.0, because of ‘X-Ray Threat Zones’, but it can happen in HoTT)

On the other hand, if the HoTT FAQ is followed, then Element-X must fully line up, leaving
no physical room for Element-Y to ‘shut-the-door’, so the Red flank will be safe from attack.

Which of these do players prefer?

martin
Emperor

Posts: 2,402

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 17, 2022 13:51:49 GMT

Quote

Post by martin on Mar 17, 2022 13:51:49 GMT

Mar 17, 2022 12:26:19 GMT stevie said:

The old HoTT FAQ from “The Stonghold Rebuilt” site says, and I quote:-
Q: An element moves into an enemy's front zone, and wishes to line up with it.
However, it has insufficient movement to do so in this bound.
Is it allowed to partially line up with the enemy element, completing the move in a following bound?
A: No. A move to line up (or contact) an enemy element within its front zone must be completed within
a single bound or it may not be attempted.
　　
Although this makes sense when contacting an enemy (where front corners must touch: see page 31),
lining up at a distance is a bit controversial, and is not borne-out by the rules.

The “Crossing An Enemy Element’s Front” rules, bullet point two, and also the diagram on page 29,
example 6, first bullet point, both say you can move straight forward when in a ZOC...
...and if the enemy is at an angle to your front, moving straight forward will not be lining-up this bound.

However, I do see the the point of this HoTT FAQ interpretation, and think it should be applied in all cases,
except when moving exactly straight forwards.
Consider the following example:-

Here the Red player has quite wisely left Element-A back to that its ZOC prevents a flank attack.
But if the Blue player can move Element-X forwards and sideways a bit, without lining up,
then it will block the ZOC from Element-A, leaving Element-Y free to ‘shut-the-door’.
(This can’t happen in DBA 3.0, because of ‘X-Ray Threat Zones’, but it can happen in HoTT)

On the other hand, if the HoTT FAQ is followed, then Element-X must fully line up, leaving
no physical room for Element-Y to ‘shut-the-door’, so the Red flank will be safe from attack.

Which of these do players prefer?

My preference - Partial line up allowed (which was how DBA pre v3 was played, too). I think most Hott tournaments/players in UK allow this (?)

stevie
Emperor

Posts: 3,195

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 17, 2022 18:34:11 GMT

Quote

Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2022 18:34:11 GMT

I do see your point Martin, but should it be soooo easy to neutralize flank protection,
by blocking ZOC, making it extremely difficult (or almost impossible) to protect a flank?
Perhaps that is the reason for “The Stronghold Rebuilt” HoTT FAQ ruling.

As I’m currently working on a new updated HoTT FAQ, I’m very reluctant to
overturn anything already existing in the current FAQ...especially as the
current “Stronghold Rebuilt” HoTT FAQ has been around for many years,
and no-one has complained or questioned it so far.
(Mind you, there is no guarantee that players ever fully followed it either)

Last Edit: Mar 17, 2022 18:55:14 GMT by stevie: ..."to leave it in, or to take it out...that is the question..."☺

coyote139
Munifex

Posts: 46

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 17, 2022 22:03:22 GMT

Quote

Post by coyote139 on Mar 17, 2022 22:03:22 GMT

Hello

For me, Y movement is not possible :

1) the FAQ, accordiing to me, deals with an element who want to line up in contact. It should have been better to precise it, so I am may be wrong
2) where I am pretty sure, is that Y cross a less than one element wide gap for its movement without going straight ahead, so the move is illegal

That is my analysis.

Yours sincerely

Claude

stevie
Emperor

Posts: 3,195

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 18, 2022 11:01:05 GMT

Quote

Post by stevie on Mar 18, 2022 11:01:05 GMT

That is an excellent observation Claude. 👍

Yes, still allow ‘distant partial lining-up’ during a bound (as Martin suggested),
re-word the HoTT FAQ ruling to ‘only apply when in contact’ (as you suggested),
and remind players that gaps must be wide enough (thus a flank can still to be protected).

(Perhaps the fault lies with me, for taking the HoTT FAQ ruling far too literally...
...taking things too literally has been known to have caused me trouble in the past...)

So how does the following re-worded HoTT FAQ ruling look, with changes in blue?:-
Q: An element moves into an enemy's front zone, and wishes to line up with it.
However, it has insufficient movement to do so in this bound.
Is it allowed to partially line up with the enemy element, completing the move in a following bound?
A: Yes, but lining up when in contact with an enemy element must be completed within a single
bound or it may not be attempted.
Remember that gaps must be 1 BW wide for them to be entered, but elements can be
passed through, over, or under if allowed.

However, this does mean that in my diagram, if Element-X were Aerials or Sneakers and blocked
Element-A’s ZOC, then Element-Y could still ‘shut-the-door’ and attack the Red line in the flank.
(Giving Sneakers an additional role to play...blocking ZOC but allowing flank attackers to pass through)

Last Edit: Mar 18, 2022 11:01:46 GMT by stevie: ...so leave it in...but make it more precise and clearer...

medievalthomas
Tribune

Posts: 879

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 18, 2022 18:21:07 GMT

Quote

Post by medievalthomas on Mar 18, 2022 18:21:07 GMT

Collapsing TZs in this manner was always allowed by use and practice in DBA/HOTT prior to DBA 3.0 and was the main reason why X-ray TZs were adopted to get rid of (with all their warts - but this was an essential rule hole to plug).

Phil claimed he never intended TZs to be collapsed in this manner and didn't realize that "rolling carpet" had been adopted rather than "flash light" TZs by certain umpire/commentators. (If TZs were flashlights than part of the TZ would still project around the partially blocking Element blocking this cheesy move). But it got into the rules a long way back.

For a long time DBA 3.0 was going to just codify "flashlight" but Phil thought the actual phrasing of the rule too arcane given that he was always obssesed with confining the rule to a certain amount of physical space. So he put in X-Rays from DBMM to once and for all get rid of this partial block stuff and though I didn't like X-Rays I did agree with Phil that we needed to get rid of this cheesy partial block rule at all costs.

The "rolling carpet" is explicitly part of HOTT, however, though Phil would probably have fixed it eventually but if you are a purest there it is. (Page 16 first bullet of CROSSING...).

Nothing in the obtuse HOTT FAQ changes this.

So if you want to play Phil's current intention get rid of the rule but if you want to play letter of the law in HOTT get ready to chesse and be cheesed.

TomT

stevie
Emperor

Posts: 3,195

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 18, 2022 21:44:51 GMT Baldie likes this

Quote

Post by stevie on Mar 18, 2022 21:44:51 GMT

Thanks for that rule development insight Tom.

And I do agree with you that the ‘flashlight’ approach would have been better...
...although I must confess that I do quite like the ‘X-Ray TZ’s’ used in DBA 3.0
(and also in D3H2) for other reasons.

(You know, simply changing a single word in HoTT page 16 bullet point one would fix things:-
“* If at least ~~partially~~ fully separated from the enemy by another element”)

Still, as you say, the ‘rolling carpet’ method is specifically mentioned in the rules,
and we must obey Phil Barker’s commandments...no matter how daft!

medievalthomas
Tribune

Posts: 879

An Awkward Question: must you line-up? Mar 21, 2022 21:46:37 GMT stevie likes this

Quote

Post by medievalthomas on Mar 21, 2022 21:46:37 GMT

I don't obey Mr. Barker's daft commandments and neither does he. When we played a game of DBMM together he changed a rule in mid game since he didn't like how it played out in one situation. As to Rolling Carpet, I doubt he even realized this old remnant concept still floated around in HOTT.

I kept X-ray in D3H2 since it was really just completed the HOTT update that Phil wanted but could not in the end deal with. So I kept everything as he had wanted.

I kept X-ray in A Game of Knights & Knaves as the whole idea was to modernize DBX mechanics and make them available to the non-specialized DBX gamer. As this is a key component of current DBX basics I kept it.

TomT